DOM bridges and barriers: systematic review and survey

Questions

Which themes appear in both sources?

What new information have surveys added beyond what was already written in the literature?

How do themes vary between fishing vs. shipping contexts?

How do themes vary with positionality of the respondent (surveys only)?

Result 1: Bridges and barriers according to review and survey

Here I’ve presented three options for presenting the themes and sub-themes identified in the review and surveys. I’d love feedback on which option or combination of options best visualize the codes! Depending on your feedback, I’ll then spend time cleaning up the best option.

Option 1 - Sankey diagram

Plot below only presents the review themes and sub-themes. If this is the best way to communicate the codes, I will add a diagram visualizing the survey codes.

# A tibble: 2 × 2
  bridge_barr totals
  <chr>        <int>
1 Barrier        201
2 Bridge         509

# A tibble: 6 × 2
  code_cat           totals
  <chr>               <int>
1 Data barrier           86
2 Data bridge           173
3 Ecological barrier     13
4 Ecological bridge     141
5 Social barrier        102
6 Social bridge         195

Option 2 - Sunburst figure

Plots below are from an old draft of the review themes and sub-themes. If this is the nicest way to plot the codes, I will update the diagram and generate one for the survey themes as well.

Option 3 - Table

Review: Bridge themes

Code category	Code label
Data bridge	Management scale aligns with system needs
Data bridge	Target species data availability
Data bridge	Access to advanced technology and techniques
Data bridge	Data transparency
Data bridge	Abiotic data availability
Data bridge	Resource use data availability
Social bridge	Resource availability
Social bridge	Pre-existing conditions
Social bridge	Adoption incentives
Social bridge	Feasibility
Social bridge	Co-management and communication
Ecological bridge	Expected climate change induced range shifts
Ecological bridge	Distinct habitat preferences
Ecological bridge	Biotic indicators of target species presence
Ecological bridge	Abiotic indicators of target species presence
Ecological bridge	Highly mobile target species
Ecological bridge	Life history information available for target species
Ecological bridge	Fine-scale management appropriate for target species

Review: Barrier themes

Code category	Code label
Data barrier	Gaps and inaccuracy
Data barrier	Management scales do not align with system needs
Data barrier	Model abuse
Ecological barrier	Need for multispecies management
Data barrier	Climate change adding uncertainty to target species habitat use
Social barrier	Indirect socioeconomic consequences
Social barrier	Discontinuity
Social barrier	Poor communication and outreach
Social barrier	Poor program implementation
Social barrier	Cost

Survey: Bridge themes

Code category	Code label
Implementation bridge	Behavior change
Implementation bridge	Regulated program
Implementation bridge	Volunteer based program
Implementation bridge	Simplicity
Implementation bridge	Online presence
Implementation bridge	Tailored to user group
Implementation bridge	Clear objectives
Implementation bridge	Communication mechanisms
Social bridge	Fleet buy-in
Social bridge	External factors increasing participation
Social bridge	Communication and transparency
Social bridge	Adoption incentives
Social bridge	Observable progress
Implementation bridge	Program outreach
Social bridge	Co-management
Data bridge	Rapid data delivery
Ecological bridge	Distinct habitat preferences
Ecological bridge	Predictable spatial use

Survey: Barrier themes

Code category	Code label
Implementation barrier	Difficulty assessing impact
Implementation barrier	Limited relevance
Data barrier	Missing cross-program comparisons
Data barrier	Gaps and inaccuracy
Data barrier	Lack of near real-time data
Ecological barrier	Unpredictable bycatch patterns
Social barrier	Cost
Social barrier	Discontinuity
Social barrier	Confidentiality
Social barrier	Lack of incentives
Social barrier	Volunteer programs reduce participation
Social barrier	Regulated programs reduce participation
Social barrier	External factors reducing participation
Social barrier	Poor communication and outreach
Social barrier	Interest-holder conflicts
Social barrier	Stigmatization

Result 2: Codes by review and survey

Result 2.1: Frequencies according to review and survey

Code appearance frequencies across all bridge OR barrier codes. The proportions reported in these figures represent the percent of codes that theme or sub-theme comprises.

Literature

{fig-align=“center” width=“10in”, height = “12in”}

Surveys

{fig-align=“center” width=“10in”, height = “12in”}

Result 2.2: Time series of top theme from literature, co-management

Grey is the number of DOM publications per year, while blue is the number of times co-management and communication was referenced. Whanted to see if this code was referenced more over time, but seems that it just tracks the number of DOM publications. Likely won’t include.

Result 2.3: Heat maps of theme co-occurence

This heatmap represents number of times two codes co-occurered together in the same article, or “theme co-occurence”. I have filtered totals greater than or equal to 11, which was the 90% quantile of the co-occurrence total data set. Blue text represents data bridges and barriers, grey text represents ecological bridges and barriers, and orange text represents social bridges and barriers.

{fig-align=“center” width=“10in”, height = “8in”}

Result 3: Variations by industry

3.1: Management and conservation problems DOM has been used to address

3.2: Fishing vs. shipping

Literature

{fig-align=“center” width=“5in”, height = “8in”}

Surveys

{fig-align=“center” width=“5in”, height = “8in”}

Result 4: Variations by position (survey only)

{fig-align=“center” width=“8in”, height = “6in”}